Razack, R v

For robbery of a small business, the use of a working firearm is a substantial aggravating feature. It will ordinarily place the offence towards the upper end of the applicable sentencing range, even where the weapon is not displayed, because it reinforces the implied threat to staff.

Nevertheless, a sentence at the top of the range must give proper effect to a guilty plea entered at the earliest opportunity. Deterrence and the prevalence of firearm robberies may justify a severe sentence, but they do not remove entitlement to appropriate credit for the plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Snaresbrook Crown Court to robbery of a bookmakers and possessing an imitation firearm while committing an offence. He had demanded money while masked and carrying a functioning air pistol in his waistband. The staff did not see the weapon, but reasonably feared that he had one.

The judge imposed seven years’ imprisonment for robbery and a concurrent sentence of 18 months for the firearm offence. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that seven years was excessive after an early guilty plea. The central issue was the proper sentence within the applicable robbery guideline range after allowing for the aggravating use of a firearm and credit for the plea.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The seven-year sentence for robbery was quashed and replaced with five years’ imprisonment. The concurrent 18-month sentence for possessing an imitation firearm remained in force.

2. The offence fell within level 2 of the definitive robbery guideline applicable to small businesses. The trial starting point was four years’ custody and the sentencing range was two to seven years.

3. The working air pistol, the nighttime targeting of a small business, and the resulting fear caused to staff were important aggravating factors. Although the weapon was not displayed, the appellant had it available to reinforce his demands if required. Robberies involving a firearm will inevitably tend towards the upper end of the relevant bracket, and this offence did so.

4. The sentencing judge was entitled to stress deterrence, the increasing prevalence of firearms, and the gravity of such offending. The appellant’s asserted need to pay a drug dealer was not mitigation. His early guilty plea, however, required appropriate credit. A seven-year sentence on that plea was manifestly excessive.

5. The Court substituted five years’ imprisonment for count 1. The 114 days spent in custody before sentence were to count towards that sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in part. It quashed the seven-year robbery sentence and substituted five years’ imprisonment.

• Snaresbrook Crown Court: On 10 December 2007, imposed seven years’ imprisonment for robbery and a concurrent sentence of 18 months for possessing an imitation firearm while committing an offence.